ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10810  March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA<br /><br />034 Phil 475

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10810. March 28, 1916. ]

    THE MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO, PROVINCE OF LA UNION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. GABRIEL TAVORA, objector-appellant.

    Tavora & Manikis for Appellant.

    Provincial Fiscal Baltazar for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    REGISTRATION OF LAND; DECREE OF REGISTRATION SET ASIDE FOR FRAUD. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the petitioner had practiced a fraud upon the defendant in obtaining its certificate of title to a portion of the land included therein, and for that reason the decree should be opened and the defendant should be given an opportunity to be heard.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The purpose of the present action was to correct a decree of registration of a certain parcel (lot No. 3) of land registered in the name of municipality of Agoo, of the Province of La Union. The contention of the opponent is that certain land belonging to him had been fraudulently included in said registration in favor of the petitioner.

    From the record it appears that the plaintiff, on or about the 16th of June, 1913, presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of a certain lot or parcel of land located in the municipality of Agoo. A companying said petition a plan of said parcel of land (lot No. 3) was presented and marked Exhibit A.

    Later, without any opposition having been presented, the Honorable James A. Ostrand, judge, on the 14th of October, 1913, entered a decree ordering the petitioner, and the certificate was finally issued on the 13th of December, 1913.

    Later, and within a year from the order decreeing the registration of said parcel of land, the opponent Gabriel Tavora presented a petition asking for a rehearing, upon the ground that the decree of registration had been fraudulently obtained.

    The facts upon which said motion was based are best expressed by the motion itself, which motion is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Gabriel Tavora, objector in the above entitled proceedings for registration, respectfully appears by means of his attorney and sets forth:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) That, by virtue of a decree of the Court of Land Registration of December 13, 1913, the applicant succeeded in registering, and did register a parcel of land belonging to him situated in the barrio of Santa Barbara of the municipality of Agoo, La Union, and, besides, appropriated or unduly included in the registration of the said parcel, a piece of land lying toward the north of his own, of which piece of land the objector is the absolute and exclusive owner, the metes and bounds of which, as they appear in said applicant’s application, are: NE., Calle Real; SE., Burgos; SW., Eduvigis Mendoza and Mariano Lloren; and NW., Gabriel Tavora. Excluding the portion appropriated, the land of the municipality has these same boundaries.

    "(2) That the said decree was obtained fraudulently with respect to the small piece of land referred to in the first paragraph of the motion. This piece is bounded on the NW. by the property of Gabriel Tavora, and on the E. and S. by that the municipality, and has an approximately area of 5 ares and 95 centares.

    "(3) That the objector was duly cited and summoned on the hearing of this case.

    "(4) That, for the following reasons, the objector did not file its opposition in time:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) Because, about the year 1907, this land of the municipality was surveyed for the first time by a surveyor assisted by the objector, and the plan thereof was drawn in conformity with the applicant’s indications and the objector’s documents and plans; this plan is now in the office of the provincial fiscal of La Union.

    "(b) Because, about the month of October, 1909, when the case was ready for hearing, it was discovered that the surveyor who prepared the plan was not licensed appointed as such by the Government, and for this reason the land was for the second time surveyed by another surveyor, again with the assistance of the objector and of one Cayetano Ventura who said he was authorized by the then municipal president of Agoo to point out or indicate the true boundaries of the land of the municipality.

    "(c) Because this second surveyor and by the acts of the said Cayetano Ventura, intentionally and deliberately induced the objector to believe that in preparing the map or plan of the land of the municipality, they would follow the boundaries as set forth in the objector’s documents and plans , which were shown to them, and, by reason of this belief the objector did not filed an advance claim.

    "(d) Because in the hearing in these proceedings, the opponent saw a plan in the office of the provincial fiscal approved by Mr. E. P. Shurman and as he believed that it was a copy of the plan presented in evidence and attached to the record in this case, he did not for this reason file the proper adverse claim.

    "(5) That the entire boundary or divisionary line between the applicant’s land and that of the opponent consists of a stone wall, a part of which has been in existence since time immemorial and the rest of is since more than 30 years.

    (6) That the aforementioned piece of land was planted to coconut trees by the objector more than 14 years ago.

    "(7) That the objector discovered this fraud only about the month of October, 1914, upon the municipal treasurer’s attempting to fix the boundaries of the applicant’s land.

    "(8) That the objector has been unlawfully deprived of his property as regards the aforementioned piece of land appropriated by virtue of the said decree.

    "By reason of all the foregoing, the objector prays the honorable court to order a review of the proceedings in this case including the decree, to grant a new trial, and afterwards in due time to render judgment of December 13, 1913, to have been fraudulently obtained and to be null and void with respect to the registration of the parcel of land that is the subject-matter of the present motion; by declaring that this parcel belongs absolutely and exclusively to the objector; and by condemning the applicant to pay the costs and allowing such other remedies as justice and equity may require."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Said motion was accompanied by a number of affidavits, presented by citizens of the pueblo of Agoo, who alleged and swore that they had known the parcel of land in question and the boundaries thereof.

    Said motion was also accompanied by the title deeds of the opponent, which title deeds contain a minute description of the parcels of land which the opponent claims.

    Later the question whether or not the decree of the 13th of December, 1913, should be reopened was submitted to the court and the lower court decide that no fraud existed in obtaining said decree and denied the motion. From that order the opponent appealed to this court.

    The only question presented by the appeal is whether or not the plaintiff committed a fraud against the defendant in obtaining the registration of the parcel or lot No. 3. If no fraud was committed, then the decree is invalid, and should be reopened.

    The opponent alleges, in effect that the fraud consisted in the fact the plaintiff induced him to believe, in the making of a former plan of the land, as well as the one which was presented accompanying the petition for registration, that it was attempting to have one parcel of land registered, while, as a matter of fact, it was attempting to have a different parcel of the land registered. The facts upon that question are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    First. There existed a stone wall between said lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant; that said stone wall had existed for a very long period; that the plaintiff had recognized said wall as the boundary line between said lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant.

    Second. That said boundary line marked by said stone wall was recognized by the plaintiff in a map prepared at the request of the plaintiff by Edward P. Shurman, district engineer, in the month of August, 1907 (see Exhibit A of the defendant), that said map was prepared by Shurman, according to the proof, at the request of the plaintiff and in the presence of representative of the plaintiff and the defendant; that at the time of the preparation of said plan (Exhibit A) the defendant showed his title papers to said engineer and the representative of the plaintiff and it was the boundary line between the said lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant.

    Third. That some time after the preparation of said plan, Exhibit A of the defendant, the plaintiff had another plan was prepared (see Exhibit A of the plaintiff), which plan was presented as a part of the petition for registration of said lot No. 3.

    Fourth. That at the time of the preparation of said Exhibit A of the plaintiff, or rather at the time of the making of the memorandum preparatory to the preparation of said plan, the defendant, the surveyor, and a representative of the plaintiff, again personally examined the dividing boundary between lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant in relation with the title documents of the defendant, and then again the representative of the plaintiff, the surveyor, and the defendant mutually agreed that the said stone wall above mentioned was the true and correct boundary between the two parcels of property.

    Fifth. Notwithstanding the fact that the representative of the plaintiff and the surveyor had, after investigation and examination of the title documents of the defendant, agreed that the stone wall was the true and correct boundary line between the two said parcels of property, when the map or plan was made (Exhibit A of the plaintiff) the dividing line was located so as to put practically all of the stone wall upon lot No. 3; in other words, notwithstanding the knowledge of the plaintiff and the surveyor relating to the fact that the stone wall constituted the true and correct boundary, the plan which was prepared all of the stone wall inside of lot No. 3, thereby not only depriving the defendant of the stone wall, but of a strip of land which he and his predecessors had owned, occupied, and enjoyed for a long period of years.

    Sixth. To better illustrate the boundary line in question, we hereto add the following as Exhibit C. While no pretension is made that Exhibit C shows accurately the location of the said stone wall as the boundary line between lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant complained.

    By an examination of said Exhibit C, which more or less accurately shows the dividing line between lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant, as indicated by the two plans [(a) Exhibit A of the defendant and (b) Exhibit A of the plaintiff], it will be seen:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    First. That the heavy line marked 12, 13, 14, 15, which is the stone wall above referred to, is the dividing line agreed upon by all parties at the time both of said plans were made; and

    Second. That the dotted line marked in red ink, 1, 4, is the boundary line as indicated by Exhibit A of the plaintiff, which dotted red line shows that Exhibit A of the plaintiff was not prepared in accordance with the facts agreed upon at the time of the making said Exhibit A of the plaintiff.

    (INSERT PICTURE)

    Seventh. By reference to Exhibit C, it will be seen although not accurately by exact measurements, that the plaintiff, notwithstanding its agreement that the stone wall constituted the true and correct boundary line between the two said parcels of property, had obtained an order for the registration of a parcel of land with the boundary between lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant, very different from said agreement and had deprived the defendant of a portion of his land, which he and his predecessors had occupied for a long period of years.

    But in reply to the foregoing facts it may be said that the defendant should have stood in the portals of the Court of Land Regulation and should have made an examination of the petition and plan presented by the plaintiff, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the plaintiff was complying with its agreement with him. In reply to that argument we think it is proper to say that the defendant had a perfect right to rely upon his agreement with the plaintiff, that the plaintiff would not make a plan including land which it knew did not belong to it. We think the acts of the plaintiff constitute a fraud against the defendant and that the decree of the 13th of December, 1913, a hearing, and that the plan Exhibit A, as presented by the plaintiff, should be corrected so as to make the stone wall which has stood and been recognized as the true and correct boundary between lot No. 3 and the land of the defendant, the real boundary between the two said parcels of land, and without any finding as to costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10810  March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA<br /><br />034 Phil 475




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED